I watched Gordon Brown's historic statement outside No 10 yesterday evening and thought that he handled it well enough. But this morning's right-of-centre national papers were determined to rub his nose in the dirt.

For the implication behind his going is that some kind of deal between Labour and the Liberal Democrats is now inevitable, which is anathema to the publishers and editors who want to see David Cameron's Conservatives assume power.

So The Sun's splash (headline: "GOING BROWN") began: "Downing Street squatter Gordon Brown finally turned his back on power last night - and left a trail of chaos behind him."

The Daily Mail called it "A SQUALID DAY FOR DEMOCRACY" and saw it as a cynical way for Labour to keep hold of power. As did the Daily Express with "THIS SHABBY STITCH-UP."

By far the best headline among the Tory-supporting press was the Daily Telegraph's "A very Labour coup". Its intro made its feelings clear, referring to it as a "sordid" attempt to keep Labour in power.

It also mentioned that senior Conservatives were accusing the Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg of "treachery" (not quite certain why it put both 'sordid' and 'treachery' within quote marks). Below the splash was a commentary by Benedict Brogan that also conveyed the paper's sense of outrage:

This is not a constitutional crisis. But it is a travesty... If the abuse of expenses was a scandal, then what should we make of this abuse of trust?

The Financial Times, which had rightly revealed the previous day that Brown was being urged by senior colleagues to step aside, referred in its leading article to Brown's "mischievous exit."

It was not "selfless statesmanship," said the paper. If there is a resulting Lib-Lab pact it will be seen as "a coalition of the losers". The FT repeated its wish for a Tory-Lib deal as "the best outcome."

The leader in The Times (front page: "His parting shot") heaped scorn on the Lib Dems for putting "narrow party interest" before the national interest. In spite of calling for the party to reconsider, the paper seemed to accept that it will not partner the Tories.

Mr Clegg has been taught a depressing lesson by his party. They are constitutionally unready to govern... Mr Clegg's volte-face [by talking to Labour] is bordering on the dishonourable.

The Independent, by contrast, was sympathetic to Clegg's dilemma. It understood that, for the Lib Dems, electoral reform is the most important issue, and bringing it about is in the national interest. As for Brown's departure, the paper thought it "a timely and fitting bequest."

The Guardian (front page: "Brown plays last card") also saw the amazing turn of political events after Brown's "courageous decision to resign" in positive terms. It might well lead to "an epoch-changing government... with a mission to see Britain through the continuing economic crisis and create a reformed system of politics."

In essence, the Daily Mirror (front page pun headline: "FOR THE GREATER GORD..") saw it in similar terms. It praised Brown's "sacrifice" and "selflessness". The paper said: "He ignored the demented rantings of the right-wing media... and did his duty."

But the weight of the liberal trio - Guardian, Indy and Mirror - does not match that of the right-wing, anti-Brown - and now anti-Clegg - press.

Jeremy Clarkson in The Sun was also over-heated: "Gord riddance to the Scottish idiot," he wrote in a piece headlined: "THE END OF AN ERROR."Kelvin MacKenzie was generous to "psycho" Brown: "I believe he came into politics to do good. He may have failed but when he leaves he will not fill his wallet and besmirch the good name of No 10 in the manner of Tony Blair."

Its main attack, however, was on Brown. Even as he departs, the Labour leader has made life unbearable for papers that would rather see a Tory government.

On the op-ed page, the paper's Mary Riddell was much more understanding of Brown's sacrifice, arguing that if it brings about a Lib-Lab coalition "Brown, a colossal figure on the political stage, will have assured his place in history."

In a typically measured piece in The Times, Peter Riddell (no relation to Mary, of course) looked ahead to the problems a rainbow coalition will face in maintaining a Commons majority and, more importantly, in calming the markets.

The paper's Rachel Sylvester saw the "monumental struggle" between the three parties as "a battle between pragmatism and ideology." She concluded: "The choice all the parties now face with curious symmetry, is between compromising in order to reach power and retaining the purity of opposition."

True legitimacy resides in a coalition of principle between the parties that stood for election on the most closely shared values... Most who voted Lib Dem would feel the deal illegitimate if they found their vote diverted into the Cameron camp.